I didn't see anything specifically discussing this situation in Stone's Music Notation in th e20th Century, but on page 112, in the example at the bottom, he DOES use a dotted-8th-rest following a 16th-note to complete beat 3 of the measure.
In the Norton Manual of Music Notation by George Heussenstamm on page 36, he has two columns, one as it would have been notated traditionally and the other one labeled Now Acceptable (it was copyrighted in 1987), and line h. is exactly the situation asked about, with the traditional column showing 16th-note, 16th-rest, 8th-rest and the now acceptable column showing 16th-note, dotted-8th-rest. Robert Patterson wrote: > Concerning dotted 16ths, I believe one of the references is fairly clear about > it. I know David Bailey said Gardner Read was silent, but I thought I remembered > something in there about it nevertheless. If not there then in Kurt Stone. > (Unfortunately those reference books are not here at this computer.) > > At any rate, what they are fairly clear about is that you should *not* use > dotted rests to fill beats, either before or after. The closest examples in Ross > are some of the examples on p. 180. (These involve 8th & 4ters rather than > 16ths.) > > This does not mean I necessarily agree with the references, however. Especially > in the case of 16ths and smaller, there has been a movement among contemporary > composers towards filling with dotted rests on either side of the beat. Doing so > reduces clutter and leaves room for things like clef changes (or glisses, or any > number of other effect notations.) > > -- > Robert Patterson > > http://RobertGPatterson.com > _______________________________________________ > Finale mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale > > -- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
